A policemen sued in defamation. The newspaper pleaded Reynolds qualified privilege.
Held: The plea was struck out. There has developed tendency of defendants to plead qualified privilege since the Reynolds decision in ‘rather waffly generalities’, and such defences required close scrutiny.
Eady J said: ‘Specifically in the context of the right to jury trial, judgment should not be given at any stage which has the effect of depriving the parties of a jury decision in any case where the defence may depend at least in part on a finding of fact which would be properly open to that tribunal: see e.g. Wallis v Valentine [2003] EMLR 8 at [13] and Branson v Bower [2002] QB 737 at [744]. Thus, even if a judge thinks that a particular factual conclusion for which one side contends is somewhat far-fetched, it is the jury’s credulity rather than the judge’s that must be kept in mind. The parties should therefore be given the benefit of the doubt: see e.g. Spencer v Sillitoe [2003] EMLR 10 at [31] and Bataille v Newland [2002] EWHC 1692 (QB) at pp 6-7.’
Judges:
Eady J
Citations:
[2004] EMLR 33, [2003] EWHC 2799 (QB
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and others HL 28-Oct-1999
Fair Coment on Political Activities
The defendant newspaper had published articles wrongly accusing the claimant, the former Prime Minister of Ireland of duplicity. The paper now appealed, saying that it should have had available to it a defence of qualified privilege because of the . .
Cited – B v N and Another QBD 31-Jul-2002
There was as allegation of defamation by one doctor against another.
Held: Eady J said: ‘To participate in a publication in such a way as to be liable in accordance with the law of defamation is not, I should emphasise, to be equated with . .
Cited by:
See Also – Miller v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 8-Apr-2005
. .
Cited – Armstrong v Times Newspapers Ltd and David Walsh, Alan English CA 29-Jul-2005
The claimant sought damages after publication by the first defendant of articles which it was claimed implied that he had taken drugs. The paper claimed qualified privilege, and claimed Reynolds immunity.
Held: The defence of qualified . .
Cited – Ali v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 27-Jan-2010
The claimant sought damages in defamation, saying that a combination of publications identified him.
Held: Eady J briefly discussed the effect of hyperlinks in the context of a dispute about meaning or reference in a defamation case. . .
See Also – Miller v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 31-Mar-2010
The claimant sought damages in defamation, saying that the defendant newspaper (Daily Mail) had implied abuse of his friendship with a Police Commissioner to obtain contracts. The defendant denied any meaning defamatory of the claimant.
Held: . .
See Also – Miller v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 11-Nov-2011
. .
See Also – Miller v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 21-Dec-2012
Judgment after trial on defamation case
Mrs Justice Sharp considered the use of hearsay evidence admitted under section 4 of the 1995 Act: ‘As the authors of Phipson on Evidence, 17th edition, say at paragraph 29-15 ‘the [Civil Evidence] Act is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Defamation
Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.229847
